Ministry of Justice

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on prosecutions, convictions and sentencing at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This tool includes convictions and sentencing for immigration offences and can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Providing this would incur disproportionate costs.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

Due to the difficulty of disaggregating the number of staff who are employed to produce social media content from staff who are employed to work on a broader digital communications, it is not possible to report exact figures in response to this question.

The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.

This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.

These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.

The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.

This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.

These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.

All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).

Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.

As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.

All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).

Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.

As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.

We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.

We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.

We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.

We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.

Secretaries of State and Accounting Officers are ultimately responsible for all risks a Department owns. Each risk in the National Risk Register (NRR) has a designated Risk Owner, working within the Lead Government Department which is responsible for designated risk areas.

This Government inherited a prison system in collapse. We have taken decisive action to put prison capacity on a sustainable footing and end the cycle of repeated crises.

We have committed to the largest expansion of the estate since the Victorians, investing £7 billion in building prison places between 2024/25 and 2029/30. We are on track to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031 with c. 2,900 delivered already under this Government.

On top of this, we have introduced landmark sentencing reforms to end our prisons crisis – and deliver punishment that cuts crime. On 2 September we introduced the Sentencing Bill to take forward most of the recommendations made by David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review, as well as the measures that go further to manage offenders in the community. The House of Lords committee stage was concluded on 3 December.

The UK has Prisoner Transfer Agreements (PTAs) with over 110 countries. They allow for the transfer of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) to their country of nationality to serve the remainder of their sentence, and the repatriation of British Citizens imprisoned overseas.

There are two types of PTA, compulsory meaning the FNO does not need to consent to transfer, and voluntary which means they do. In either case both countries must agree each transfer.

A breakdown of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) by offence group is published in the Annual prison population statistics and the most recent publication can be found here: prison-population-2025.ods. Please see Table_1_A_26, which shows the breakdown as of 30 June 2025.

As these statistics are published annually, we are not able to provide a breakdown as of September.

In the last year, we removed over 2,700 FNOs under the Early Removal Scheme, that is more than the number removed in the previous year, and a 74 percent increase compared to the same period in 2023. It will free up much-needed space in our prisons.

HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons, and six currently have abstinence-based Drug Recovery Wings. To support delivery of HMPPS’ Drug and Alcohol Strategy, 54 prisons have a dedicated Drug Strategy Lead. All remaining prisons, including Young Offender Institutions, have a designated point of contact for Drug and Alcohol Strategy work.

In addition, HMPPS has recruited 17 Group Drug and Alcohol Leads providing regional leadership, assurance, and co-ordination of drug and alcohol work for all the establishments in their Prison Group. They align activity at establishment level with national drug and alcohol strategy and policies which aim to restrict supply, reduce demand and support recovery. They also support local and regional partnerships with healthcare providers to support a range of issues including continuity of care on release.

We are unable to provide compliance rates by year for those released from custody and subject to alcohol monitoring. However, our published research for this cohort has shown around four out of five prison leavers with an alcohol monitoring condition added to their licence during 2023 did not violate their order. Of those who did violate their order, most only received a single violation. The Department’s published research can be found here - AML: Process and Interim Impact Evaluation.

The compliance rate of alcohol monitoring imposed by the court as part of a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order, which imposes a total ban on drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, showed from the introduction of the technology in October 2020 through to 6 June 2025, the devices did not register a tamper or alcohol alert for 97.3% of the days worn. Anyone who does break the rules, risks being returned to custody.

According to the Open University, as of 18 December 2025, there are 1,486 students who are currently in custody enrolled on Open University higher education programmes for the 2025/26 academic year, and a further 413 on licence in the community, totalling 1,899.

Additionally, some prisoners are taking level 4 courses, with 1,524 prisoners currently studying a course funded by the Prisoners’ Education Trust.

Prison Employment Leads (PELs) and ID and Banking Administrators (IDBAs) were introduced to 93 prisons across the estate in 2022 and have been effective in supporting prisoners to prepare for their reintegration into the community since then. Whilst these roles are supported nationally, they are managed and recruited to locally, so numbers of vacancies are not held centrally.

HMPPS Area Executive Directors (AEDs) are responsible for leading a joined-up approach to prisons and probation in their region, alongside working with criminal justice partners such as the police and local authorities to address the causes of offending and to make sure that those released from prison do not reoffend.

For those who persistently break the law, we are building 14,000 new prison places to make sure they are removed from the streets. Whilst in prison they will be expected to take part in education or learn new skills to make them more useful contributors to society after release.

Anyone released from prison is subject to strict licence conditions, including exclusion zones where appropriate. If found to have breached these conditions they can be returned to prison.

The Probation Service puts in place services aimed at reducing re-offending by supporting the needs of people on probation in the West Midlands. These include providing support in obtaining and maintaining suitable accommodation, help with drug and alcohol dependency issues, assistance with personal wellbeing needs and a holistic service addressing all needs for women.

In the Midlands, we have introduced an area Reducing Reoffending lead who will lead on projects working with Prison and Probations across the Midlands to help in reducing reoffending.

Safety in prisons is a key priority, and we are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible for those who live and work in them. We are providing targeted support to a number of prisons to improve safety, security and substance misuse processes, and the join-up between them, to strengthen safety outcomes.

There are a number of local initiatives taking place to improve safety in prisons in Surrey and Hampshire. These include but are not limited to; using peer mentoring and restorative justice to promote conflict resolution and personal growth, encouraging positive relationships between staff and prisoners to bolster prisoner wellbeing and specific projects designed to support young adults and neurodiverse individuals in custody. Sites are also upskilling staff in safety related tasks, implementing improvements in the physical environment, and utilising Substance Free Living Units.

HM Prison and Probation Service rehabilitation services take many forms, ranging from accredited programmes and interventions that are aimed at giving people skills to change their attitudes, thinking and behaviour, to enabling a person to access education, healthcare, substance misuse support, suitable accommodation, and the means to earn a living pro-socially.

Some rehabilitative activity is delivered in-house, and some via our partner organisations. We keep our work under constant review to ensure we are acting in line with the available evidence whilst also meeting the rehabilitative needs of the people we work with.

We recognise that parole hearings can be distressing for victims and their families, which is why dedicated Victim Liaison Officers provide support throughout the process. Victims can explain the effect of the offence, and the ongoing impact it has on them, through a Victim Personal Statement, which may be read aloud during the hearing. They can also request specific licence conditions are put forward for the Parole Board to consider applying if an offender is released.

Since April, we have made it possible for victims to apply to observe hearings if they wish, to help them understand how the Parole Board considers evidence and assesses risk. We understand how challenging this process can be and we want to ensure that victims and their families are given the support, information and opportunities they need to help them through it.

Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.

Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.

The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.

The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.

Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.

Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.

The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.

The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.

Chester Crown Court has been allocated an additional 232 sitting days in-region to increase hearing capacity and improve throughput of cases. Additional Legal Advisor recruitment is underway to facilitate an increase in court hearing capacity in Cheshire Magistrates’ Courts.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. Investment alone is not enough - that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

Transcription services are available for all Crown Court cases. We are exploring the potential use of AI to produce transcripts more quickly and cost effectively.

As recommended by Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the Government will introduce audio recording equipment in magistrates’ courts. This measure supports our changes to the appeals process in magistrates’ courts, to mirror the current process in the Crown Court, which will ensure that victims and witnesses are no longer required to go through the trauma of a full re-hearing.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) are international courts based respectively in France and the Netherlands. The UK is a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rome Statute, the international treaties which established the ECtHR and ICC respectively. It is also a founding member of both instruments.

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICC Act 2001 give effect to the UK's obligations under the ECHR and Rome Statute. We respect the independence of both courts.

The Government is committed to bearing down on the backlog. In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on the allocation for 2025-26 as part of the Concordat process and we will say more in due course.

The Government has made significant progress in increasing the processing capacity of the courts and tribunals system and remains committed to reducing backlog.

In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year.

In the Family Courts, reforms are already delivering results. Courts operating under the private law Pathfinder model are achieving some of the lowest case durations nationally, in South East Wales, for example, average duration fell from 37 weeks to 12 weeks on average. In addition, the Department for Education invested £10 million in 2024/25 to fund pilots aimed at reducing delays in family proceedings, with evaluation due to conclude in 2026.

Across the tribunals system, we are taking a comprehensive approach to improve productivity. Sitting day capacity has been set at or close to the maximum deliverable level. We are also promoting early dispute resolution to reduce unnecessary demand, including judicial Alternative Dispute Resolution pilots in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26 and we will say more in due course.

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.

When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.

When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

The answer to this question has been provided as an Excel document alongside this response.

The table provided was published as part of the Offender Management chapter of the 2024 ‘Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System’ publication. (This series is published every other year.)

The figures presented are based on the total prison population and therefore include those held on remand, those sentenced and non-criminals.

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.

We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.

There has been no major reform of the criminal courts since the establishment of the Crown Court in 1971, despite Lord Auld making similar recommendations to Sir Brian Leveson in 2001.

Sir Brian’s report found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they were in 2000 - one of the reasons is increased complexity in modern cases, the density of evidence deployed to establish them, and the increased efforts made to provide support and guidance to jurors.

We are working within a system built for a different age and even with record investment, the Crown Court caseload will continue to rise. We need generational structural reform, investment, and modernisation.

Everyone has, and will always have, the right to a fair trial. But there is no right to trial by jury in England and Wales and the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted – fairly, without a jury – in the magistrates’ courts. Jury trials will nevertheless remain for the most serious cases - these reforms are designed to ensure a more proportionate use of overall resource in our criminal courts to ensure we are best serving the needs of both victims and defendants, to deliver better, swifter outcomes.

There is no quick fix - it will take time to tackle an issue which has been years in the making, but we must act before the caseload becomes irretrievable. There are no plans to introduce sunset clauses for all proposals.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. That is why we intend to introduce legislation to enact the two primary recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s review when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, my officials will consider the remaining recommendations in more detail.

New legislation will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, with prospective effect. Furthermore, the Government intends to introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

Further details can be read in the Written Ministerial Statement issued on 17 December 2025: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-17/hcws1192.

The Government recognises the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and consensually. We are piloting mandatory mediation for small money claims (under £10,000) as part of the county court process. This pilot runs until May 2026 and will be evaluated before decisions on further mandatory use across civil law.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 10 November to Question 87407.

The Department has worked around the clock to ensure that digital services were restored as swiftly and safely as possible. There has been no delay to implementation of the new secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS), which went live on 11 August following a period of testing with providers

Since then, we have worked closely with providers to test functionality before bringing providers back onto our systems in a careful, phased approach. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

In the event that the Ministry of Justice receives a complaint about the handling or outcome of a particular case the correspondent would be advised to seek advice regarding any right of appeal and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a member of the judiciary, provided with information about the relevant complaints process. This is because the judiciary are entirely independent and must be free to decide the outcome of cases without fear of interference from Government or its administration.

Decisions of the Employment Tribunal can be appealed on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Complaints about the conduct of an Employment Judge sitting in England must be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/

For an Employment Judge sitting wholly or mainly in Scotland, complaints must be made to the President of the Employment Tribunal (Scotland): https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal publishes the names of its non-permanent judges on its website.

The list is available at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/judges/npjs/index.html.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.

Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.

CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.